Today, President Obama met with Congressional leaders from both parties to discuss the war in Afghanistan while the pressure on the administration to send more troops keeps increasing. Discussion of Afghanistan has increased dramatically in recent months, although the matter was made all the more pressing with the deaths of eight American soldiers in Nuristan province yesterday. Although the president has not given any hints to what he may do, the White House did say that a total withdraw of troops from the region was not on the table.
That being said, there are basically three ways that the administration could go. General Stanley McCrystal has said that he may ask for as many as 40,000 more troops. However, Obama may feel that that number is politically risky, and decide to lower that number to ten or twenty thousand. Also, there have been hints that Obama may decide on a third option, actually pulling troops out of Afghanistan in favor of a more focused anti-terrorism mission.
Obama has said that his first job is to determine the strategy in Afghanistan, and only then can a decision be made about resources and how best to implement that strategy. Many Republicans, including former presidential candidate John McCain, have expressed a counter-insurgency strategy, much like what was used in Iraq. The problem with that is that it assumes that we have a honest broker in the region.
Peter Galbraith, formerly of the UN, has said that he witnessed voter fraud in Afghanistan and was told to keep quiet in the name of national unity. Most who support Afghani president Karzai are ethnic Pushtans, while those who support Abdullah are Tajiks, and fears are growing that in such a tribalistic country like Afghanistan, ethnic cleansing might not be far off. Furthermore, the Taliban and Al-Qeada have contacts and operatives in Pakistan, as shown by the bombing of the World Food Bank this week. Afghanistan's Foreign Minister has said that Afghanistan faces "a triangle of terror that compromises the Taliban, Al-Qeada, and the ISI." The ISI is Pakistan's intelligence service. If we are dealing with people who are more interested in power and jihad than a safe and secure Afghanistan, are we ever likely to achieve that goal on our own?
So these are the choices that Obama, and indeed the American people, face. Sadly, this decision may define the Obama presidency more than any other. Tomorrow marks the beginning of the 9th year of this war. Have we wasted our opportunity for a secure Afghanistan that respects the rule of law? Was it ever possible to begin with? This part of the world seems increasingly immune from the influence of American power. We, however, are not immune from the consequences of what happens there.
That being said, there are basically three ways that the administration could go. General Stanley McCrystal has said that he may ask for as many as 40,000 more troops. However, Obama may feel that that number is politically risky, and decide to lower that number to ten or twenty thousand. Also, there have been hints that Obama may decide on a third option, actually pulling troops out of Afghanistan in favor of a more focused anti-terrorism mission.
Obama has said that his first job is to determine the strategy in Afghanistan, and only then can a decision be made about resources and how best to implement that strategy. Many Republicans, including former presidential candidate John McCain, have expressed a counter-insurgency strategy, much like what was used in Iraq. The problem with that is that it assumes that we have a honest broker in the region.
Peter Galbraith, formerly of the UN, has said that he witnessed voter fraud in Afghanistan and was told to keep quiet in the name of national unity. Most who support Afghani president Karzai are ethnic Pushtans, while those who support Abdullah are Tajiks, and fears are growing that in such a tribalistic country like Afghanistan, ethnic cleansing might not be far off. Furthermore, the Taliban and Al-Qeada have contacts and operatives in Pakistan, as shown by the bombing of the World Food Bank this week. Afghanistan's Foreign Minister has said that Afghanistan faces "a triangle of terror that compromises the Taliban, Al-Qeada, and the ISI." The ISI is Pakistan's intelligence service. If we are dealing with people who are more interested in power and jihad than a safe and secure Afghanistan, are we ever likely to achieve that goal on our own?
So these are the choices that Obama, and indeed the American people, face. Sadly, this decision may define the Obama presidency more than any other. Tomorrow marks the beginning of the 9th year of this war. Have we wasted our opportunity for a secure Afghanistan that respects the rule of law? Was it ever possible to begin with? This part of the world seems increasingly immune from the influence of American power. We, however, are not immune from the consequences of what happens there.
No comments:
Post a Comment